Climate skeptics occasionally publish papers in journals featured on Beall’s list of predatory journals. Various blogs will then proclaim the new addition to the peer-reviewed literature. And so it is with Ollila (2016), featured today on WUWT.
Since these papers are generally somewhat worse than awful, it’s tempting to wonder how little peer review $500 buys. Wonder no more: Physical Science International Journal, a ScienceDomain International journal, which published Ollila (2016) has an open peer review system.
Ollila (2016) had four reviews and three editors, so it should be thorough evaluation of the papers merits.
The second review is succinct:
1. The abstract is too long. It should be shortened.2. Since the symbols, abbreviations and acronyms are given in the text, Table 1 should remove from the text.3. The discussion must be given before Conclusion. The row must be changed.
The third is even shorter:
The paper discusses one dimensional dynamic model of volcano eruption (mount Pinatubo) in the context of global cooling. The paper can be accepted.
The fourth is longer (and in colour), but concerns only structuring.
Although, Manuscript is interesting and finds new results, but Authors are required to add / amend followings:INTRODUCTION1.1 Objectives and Symbols may be removed & Nomenclature be added after Abstract & Keywords1.2 The Mount Pinatubo eruption it may be kept under 1.1 The Mount Pinatubo eruption1.3 Earlier studies may be sub-titled Literature StudyOrder of 4. Conclusion and 5. Discussion be changed as:4. Results and Discussion5. Conclusion
These three reviews are utterly useless. The reviewers, who are all named, failed in their job to critically evaluate Ollila (2016). They didn’t even try. The editors failed. To have one useless reviewer may be regarded as a misfortune; to have three looks like carelessness.
Fortunately, the first reviewer read and critically evaluated the manuscript and wrote a long and damning review. This reviewer’s second round review is also highly critical. I’ve read Ollila (2016) and I agree with reviewer one that this is a deeply flawed paper.
Despite this review, Ollila (2016) was published. Did the editors just do a vote count? One excoriating review vs. three useless reviews (and $500 publication fee)?
The first reviewer chose to remain anonymous. Alas, the journal is so utterly incompetent that it lists the reviewer’s institution on the front page of the paper. In case there was any doubt about the reviewer’s identity, the journal helpfully gives the first three letters of their name in the file name of the review. This is astoundingly incompetent.